Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-02-19

violated the law because tley EaQ OlG IN
the land and offered the land board
cents per acre lease money, and that
there was case appealed from Judge
Willis court growing out OF the affair
which the Supreme court had not the
courage to decide, and until decision
WIS made they bad right TO hold the
lands. lie wound up his argument by
paying high compliment on Judge Willis
as an honest and upright judge, and said
nothing had been proven to criminate
him in any particular.
Attorney General Hogg began his cos
inc argument at O'Clock tC-ni@ht. After
producing rebuttIng authority TO show
that Major Walton'S position relative to
the legal rights Ct the Impeachment was
wrong, he said that while the constitu-
ton of the United States prescribed
what should constitute the high
crimes and misdemeanOrS punishable
by impeachment, our constitution
laid down no grounds OF impeachments.
In other words no crimes were named as
constituting the Offense and we were not
| limited to particular statutory Offepscs.
/ He then said that he would insist on the
committee taking cogn:zance OF the is
sues charged against Judge Willis. lie
| Claimed t ST district Judge cou d be in
diCted and punished for violation on any
| statutary offtnse like any other citizen,
! but that impeachment lies for those high
crimes that cannot be committed by
private citizen. 1t was the abuse Of his
discretionary powers that called for the
! high powers vested in the court of i'm
parchment. He read from Mr.. Story in
| support of Ills position where it was held
that political crimes and kindred offenses
that could not be defined under the statU
tory law were made the subject of
impeachment. The judicial discretion
cannot be defined, ana there is hardly any
limit to the wrong that Judge nigh DO
under cover of the power thus delegated
| to him. Answering the position taken by
| defendants counsel, that an officer could
not be impeached, after mis- reelection to
| the office, for offenses committed under e
previous term, he again read from Mr.
| Story and other authorities that an Off
Ger could De impeached after his term for
crimes committed while holding the Of
| fee Referring to the WOodnsn bonus,
| ne read the statute defining the duties OF
district attorneys, where he is expressly
prohibited from taking any pay, gift or
eInOlUment for MS services, eth
er before or after prosecuting
cases, or doing any act required OF
! him under the law. He particularly
called attention to Judge Willis testi.
mony, where he said that he would have
| let Nelson's verdict stand if it had been
guilty, though he was indicted and tried
without his knowledge or consent
In this connection he asked tie
| pointed Question: "Who divulged
the fact that Nelson was indicted
when it was the sworn duty of the grand
| jury, Jadge and Sheriff to keep it g secret
until ne had been arrested, and why such
naste," showing by the record that Nelson
was indicted and tried and acquitted on
| the same day, January y, 1856.
He then showed authority that
the grand jury was portion
of the court, and directly under his con-
| troll, and the power was delegated to him
to see that they found legal verdicts. He
then arraigned Judge Willis and District
Attorney Woodmsn in an eloquent and
pointed argument, claiming that they
were making farce of justice, and
appealed to the committee to know if
they should 90 unpublished.
After generating Hon. James n.
Browning anG Senator Houston, he
wound up his argument by scathing de-
nouncement of Judge Willis as a man
that shou no longer disgrace the judi
cial ermine of Texas; that
the committee might refuse to
prefer charges against him;
! that the Legislature might refuse to I'M
peach him, but so long as he had control
of the Attorney Generals office he would
prosecute corruption 10 office, if it toOE
every dollar in the Treasury department
| OF the state.